[iwar] [fc:The.United.States.Adopts.a.Political.Agenda.Rather.Than.a.Principled.One]

From: Fred Cohen (fc@all.net)
Date: 2001-10-06 21:36:36


Return-Path: <sentto-279987-2748-1002429399-fc=all.net@returns.onelist.com>
Delivered-To: fc@all.net
Received: from 204.181.12.215 by localhost with POP3 (fetchmail-5.1.0) for fc@localhost (single-drop); Sat, 06 Oct 2001 21:38:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 24622 invoked by uid 510); 7 Oct 2001 04:36:37 -0000
Received: from n16.groups.yahoo.com (216.115.96.66) by 204.181.12.215 with SMTP; 7 Oct 2001 04:36:37 -0000
X-eGroups-Return: sentto-279987-2748-1002429399-fc=all.net@returns.onelist.com
Received: from [10.1.4.55] by n16.groups.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 07 Oct 2001 04:36:39 -0000
X-Sender: fc@big.all.net
X-Apparently-To: iwar@onelist.com
Received: (EGP: mail-7_4_1); 7 Oct 2001 04:36:38 -0000
Received: (qmail 65132 invoked from network); 7 Oct 2001 04:36:38 -0000
Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 7 Oct 2001 04:36:38 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO big.all.net) (65.0.156.78) by mta3 with SMTP; 7 Oct 2001 04:36:37 -0000
Received: (from fc@localhost) by big.all.net (8.9.3/8.7.3) id VAA26175 for iwar@onelist.com; Sat, 6 Oct 2001 21:36:36 -0700
Message-Id: <200110070436.VAA26175@big.all.net>
To: iwar@onelist.com (Information Warfare Mailing List)
Organization: I'm not allowed to say
X-Mailer: don't even ask
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL1]
From: Fred Cohen <fc@all.net>
Mailing-List: list iwar@yahoogroups.com; contact iwar-owner@yahoogroups.com
Delivered-To: mailing list iwar@yahoogroups.com
Precedence: bulk
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:iwar-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com>
Date: Sat, 6 Oct 2001 21:36:36 -0700 (PDT)
Reply-To: iwar@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [iwar] [fc:The.United.States.Adopts.a.Political.Agenda.Rather.Than.a.Principled.One]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

The United States Adopts a Political Agenda Rather Than a Principled One

                        by Professor M. Kahl**
Americans attempting to cross the divide between fear, revenge, and
nationalistic fervor are faced with a dilemma, for the United States
administration speaks with two voices diametrically opposed. One voice
speaks of fighting the forces of evil (terror) and pressuring the
world into an alignment by supporting the United States in its quest
for universal justice and morality and for placing the countries that
do not share this point of view on the side of the terrorists. The
other voice uses great words, bold words, yet unfortunately with no
substance as this United States Administration proceeds with aligning
itself with the very countries that sponsor terrorism and in doing so
has removed morality from its character. Rather than morality, we find
cynicism, rather than justice, we find a Faustian bargain of major
magnitude, rather than a far reaching plan to halt the underlying
reasons for terrorism, we find the United States aligning itself with
the very nations that sponsor terrorism, rather than adopt a stance
that promises the American public freedom from fear, we find the
ubiquitous demon of inside the beltway politics forming the United
States agenda.
Americans have no choice but to support the United States
administration as it possibly plans on attacking the western slopes of
the Himalaya mountains in its pursuit of Usama Bin Ladin. Yet, what is
Bin Ladin except a wraith, a spirit, a metaphor, whose Jihad laden
spirit is well infused into his many followers, and his followers are
in the millions, despite efforts of the United States Administration
to mesmerize its citizenry to into believing otherwise. Of course, we
are not at war with Islam, Islam is at war with us. At best, Bin Ladin
will be destroyed and to what effect? Arab media have been describing
his replacement in that event and numerous replacements proposed.
The United States may strike and recent reports reveal that the United
States and Uzbek military have drawn up plans for air strikes on
Al-Qaida camps in Afghanistan, though strict secrecy is observed for
fear of terrorist attacks on potential United States bases in
Uzbekistan. The United States army special purpose forces in
interaction with Uzbek troops, also with forces of the anti-Taliban
coalition, are expected to attack the terror camps in Afghanistan.
Additionally, reports from the region are that the price on Bin
Ladin’s head is now at 1 billion dollars.
Bin Ladin’s direct coterie are composed of many nationalities, and he
surrounds himself with some 300 dedicated followers who come from
Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Algeria, and Jordan. He dispensed with the
services of Afghans, Somalis, and Kashmiris, in the wake of the attack
on his headquarters in the Khost region in August 1998 that the United
States mounted in retaliation for the bombing of the US Embassies in
Dar -Salaam and in Nairobi.
The United States has an opportunity to strike him if its human
intelligence is accurate yet how accurate can it be since numerous
intelligence reports indicate that Bin Ladin, obviously not stupid,
moves frequently from sanctuary to sanctuary. The United States has
had ample opportunity to hunt this man down and found itself spending
hundreds of million of dollars to launch cruise missiles at empty hill
tops under President Bill Clinton.
What can we expect if the United States does indeed launch a strike?
The terrain is impossible to invade as previous invaders discovered to
their sorrow and when we add in compounding factors such as the start
of winter in about three weeks that usually drops the temperature down
to minus 40 degrees below zero (without wind chill) and an
acknowledgment that approximately one million land mines are strewn
throughout the country, without anyone knowing their location, an
invasion is out of the question. A strike using the Pentagon’s
favorite aphorism -- a surgical strike – is the only path open along
with possibly saturation bombing to assist the camera’s of CNN in
recording an American victory. Sources also point out that the
Pentagon has not ruled out tactical nuclear weapons or neutron weapons
as a last resort for remote mountainous regions as we can safely
assume that is where Bin Ladin is hiding.
Can Bin Ladin leave Afghanistan? The answer to that is probably not as
a major reason is that Afghanistan is a landlocked nation and
Bin-Ladin's departure overland is virtually impossible as he would be
an easy target for the countries lying in wait for him
Afghanistan is bordered in the northeast and the northwest by Central
Asian republics where the Russians maintain a strong intelligence
presence, as the Russians have been at pains to keep any Arab or
Afghan radical Islamists from moving into these republics. The border
with Iran is also seen as a remote prospect, for the Iranians know
it’s in their best interests to disassociate themselves from any
suspicion of being sponsors of terror.
To escape to Pakistan where Bin-Ladin has the most support is
particularly dangerous, for agents working on behalf of the CIA inside
Pakistan, plus other operatives working for other secret services, are
ubiquitous and alert.
Afghanistan has land borders with China and the borders of the two
nations meet at the predominantly Muslim Chinese province of Ksing
Yang where bin-Ladin would be welcome. Yet, it appears problematical
that Bin Ladin would go there as China is concerned this province is
problem enough without a charismatic Islamic leader coming to incite a
Muslim minority against the central government in Beijing and promote
its secession.
Observers also point out that Bin-Ladin's departure from Afghanistan
would cut him off from his United States arsenal that he had acquired
from the United States during the jihad that he mounted against the
Soviet army. These weapons may include weapons that few other nations
possess.
Diplomatic sources argue that Bin-Ladin's departure from Afghanistan
would add up to virtual suicide. They point out that there is no place
on earth that can match Afghanistan's mountainous terrain as a safe
haven from any missile, land, or air attack, that the United States
might launch. Bin-Ladin is known to be familiar with all the mountain
passes throughout the country, a knowledge that he acquired from the
days of his jihad against Soviet forces. He is said to be able to seek
shelter in places that would prove too elusive for even the strongest
military power in the world as they know very little about this area.
All these factors lead up to an American declared victory that will
leave behind the residue of all the factors that spell out the decline
of the United States on the world scene. Unfortunately, paralleling
this decline will be the fall of true American allies such as Israel.
That President Bush lost the war and that President Bush lost the war
is clear as in Desert Storm the result was to unite all the Arab
countries against the United States and this is measured by their
deeds, not by their words. Bush will spend billions in pursuing Bin
Laden and economically drain the United States in doing so, leading to
the question-- is it worth it? Is the pursuit of one man, no matter
how evil, worth, for instance, surrendering prescription drug benefits
for seniors? Is it worth plunging the United States into a possible
recession in this pursuit of a symbol representing a philosophy
birthed in Saudi Arabia and nurtured in all Arab countries and
supported by most Islamic countries? Can the survival of the United
States as a world power dedicated to democracy and justice for all be
compromised by the fiction of forming a necessary coalition involving
all Arab and Muslim countries no matter how abysmal their record on
terror, no matter their refusal to allow the United States to use
United States bases on their soil to attack Bin Ladin? Can the United
States administration honestly say that by allowing Syria on the
Security Council, it assists the United States in it’s pursuit of
evil?
President Bush’s words foreshadow his defeat in 1994 as his father ‘s
words (“read my lips, no new taxes”) before him. And in doing so, he
will hurt the Republicans in Congress as they are caught up in bind
for they must support the leader of their party, especially in light
of next year’s elections. As TV’s favorite chef intones, “pork rules.”
Can President Bush survive as he uses this tragic episode to attack
the only true friend the United States has in the region: Israel.
Israel must be viewed not as Jewish State returning to its ancestral
homeland but curiously enough as a metaphor of a Western Christian
State representing western morality and western democracy. Israel with
a land area less than the State of New Jersey and a population of
about five million Jews certainly cannot pose a threat to a world wide
Islamic population of about one and a half billion. This Israeli
threat is imaginary for Israel’s offense is that it reversed Islamic
hegemony that says that once Islam places any part of the world under
Islamic dominion that land is forever Islamic. That cannot be,
therefore Israel must be destroyed and political expediency (after all
the Jews of Florida almost cost Bush the election) leads this
administration to embark on the path to Israel’s demise.
The plan to destroy Israel pre-dated the bombings in NY City and
Washington as revealed in the last few days by Secretary of State
Powell’s initiative to impose restraints on Israel, called off due to
the bombings, and President Bush’s recent remark supporting a
Palestinian State. Following that in quick sequence was the release by
the Voice of Jordan saying that King Abdallah was promised that the
United States would not attack any Arab country. The statement was
quickly denied by Foggy Bottom, yet it has surfaced again and was
confirmed by Egyptian government news agency MENA (October 3, 2001)
who reported that Foreign Minister Ahmed Maher said that the United
States would not attack any Arab country. Maher additionally revealed
that President Hosni Mubarak and President Bush had exchanged messages
concerning these issues before the September 11 attacks. The current
activation of the US role in the Palestinian question is the product
of these communications and overtures from Egypt and Saudi Arabia.
The attack on Israel’s sovereignty continued and within the last two
days, reports have surfaced that the United States has plans for
forcing Israel to surrender much of its strategic assets, enough so to
foreshadow the demise of Israel if all is given away as planned. The
first report was by Israel’s Channel two political correspondent
Immanuel Rosen; the second report was by Steve Rodan’s Middle East
Newsline and the third was by the Saudi newspaper Abha Al-Watan.
Al-Watan reported on October 4, 2001 that United States and Arab
diplomatic sources revealed that Bush's support for establishing a
independent Palestinian state was due to a secret agreement reached
between the United States Administration and a major Arab country,
backed by other countries, before the terrorist attack on New York and
Washington on September 11. The secret agreement stipulates that Bush,
or Powell, will in an official speech at the UN General Assembly
declare his support for the establishment of a Palestinian state and
additional details for the administration’s view of the method of
resolving the Palestinian-Israeli conflict and the Arab-Israeli
conflict.The United States Administration will announce its method of
resolving the Palestinian-Israeli conflict and resolving the method of
settling the major outstanding issues, notably Jerusalem, the fate of
refugees, the future of Israeli settlements, and the method of
establishing the Palestinian state, including its borders in Gaza and
the West Bank.
Al-Watan also reported that Bush took the Arab request to resolve the
Israeli Palestinian conflict seriously and called two meetings before
the September 11 attack to examine the method of responding to the
Arab proposals. Powell supported this Arab request and called for
correction of the United States policy toward the Palestinian-Israeli
conflict and supported declaring support for the establishment of a
Palestinian state. While CIA Director George Tenet backed up Powell's
position, other officials, including Condoleezza Rice, objected to
declaring support for the establishment of a Palestinian state prior
to bringing Palestinian-Israeli confrontations to a complete halt and
resuming the Palestinian-Israeli security cooperation. President Bush
halted the dispute and issued instructions to Colin Powell to prepare
the text of an official speech presenting the United States
Administration's support for setting up a Palestinian state and also
this administration's view of the method of settling the
Palestinian-Israeli conflict.
Al-Watan reported that former United States President George Bush Sr.
is currently playing an important, undeclared role in encouraging the
United States President to give top priority to resolving the
Palestinian-Israeli conflict and reversing PM Ariel Sharon's policies
as two essential conditions.
Additionally, Al-Watan reported that Powell has finished a new speech
that he plans to deliver soon. The speech declares United States
support for the establishment of a Palestinian state and includes the
US views of the method of resolving the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.
Al Watan also reported that there is a strong possibility that the
Bush administration will take the important step of appointing a
special United States envoy to the Middle East who will be assigned
the file of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict and the Arab-Israeli
conflict. Toward this end, Powell recently met for this purpose with
Edward Djerijian, former US assistant secretary of state for Middle
East affairs Djerijian. Djerijian is currently studying this offer and
he is refusing to publicly discuss it or comment on it.
The details of the United States proposal as revealed by the other two
sources calls for an independent, Palestinian state, division of
Jerusalem into eastern and western sectors, Temple Mount turned over
the Palestinians, and the halt in all Israeli construction in the West
Bank and Gaza Strip. MENA reported that Egypt and Saudi Arabia
initiated this proposal.
This United States approach is beyond comprehension as it not only
surrenders the moral fibre of the United States to terrorism, inasmuch
as the United States is attempting to form alliances with the very
nations that bred this global disease. Are there half way solutions to
a rapidly metastasizing cancer that threatens the entire West? The
answer is clearly no and all must take a principled stand and a very
practical one if we are to survive as a people and survive as a
nation.
We must say no to any alliances with countries such as Syria, Lebanon,
Libya, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Egypt, and all the other tyrannical
and despotic regimes that form the fabric of the Middle East.
Countries such as the Sudan, Lebanon and Syria are subjecting their
Christian inhabitants to ethnic cleansing and displacement from their
homelands. They must be the focus of United States anger and surrender
their terrorist components in much the same fashion as we demanded
from the Taliban. We must support the replacing of these terror groups
by adopting the same approach we have in Afghanistan when we formed an
alliance with Mohammed Shah, the ex-King. The Pahlevi family should be
encouraged to return to Iran, the Mother of All Terrorism, and replace
the present government with a democratic government, one friendly to
the West. Continue supporting the opposition in Iraq and Syria as
then, once and for all, terror will be halted from this region. Yasir
Arafat? Remove him from the area, place him in a cell next to Slobodan
Milosevic and remove his yoke from his people and establish free
elections. Islamic Jihad, Hamas, HizbAllah, and the other 25 plus
terror organizations based in Damascus must be disbanded and
margenalized. Freedom is not available to all, and freedom from terror
must be the heritage of every American.
President Bush, your drums of war are loud and furious, but then
again, we all know what’s inside a drum.

** Director Lebanese Foundation for Peace

------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Get your FREE VeriSign guide to security solutions for your web site: encrypting transactions, securing intranets, and more!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/UnN2wB/m5_CAA/yigFAA/kgFolB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->

------------------
http://all.net/ 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : 2001-12-31 20:59:54 PST